Mormon Fundamentalism and Violence: A Historical Analysis

by Garn LeBaron Jr.

And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one
mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand,
clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words,
eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to
set in order the house of God.(1)

In August 1972, followers of Ervil Morel LeBaron murdered his
brother, Joel LeBaron as part of a power struggle for control of
their particular polygamist church group. Ervil LeBaron quickly
became the leader of the Church of the Lamb of God and proceeded
to direct his followers in the murders of more than thirty
people, all of them members of various polygamist groups. These
murders included the execution style killing of prominent Salt
Lake City polygamist leader Rulon Allred, as well as several
members who tried to leave the LeBaron sect. (2)

Before LeBaron died in the Utah State Penitentiary in 1981,
he authored a book entitled "The Book of New
Covenants," which detailed a list of former followers who
were to die in the name of God. Throughout the 1980's, children
of LeBaron murdered several former church members in Dallas,
Houston, Utah, and Mexico.(3)

In July 1978, the former David Longo, who had himself
re-christened Immanuel David, drove a truck up a canyon east of
Salt Lake City and proceeded to commit suicide by asphyxiating
himself on the exhaust of the vehicle. Three days later, his wife
ordered or pushed each of their seven children off the 11th floor
balcony of a prominent Salt Lake City hotel to their deaths on
the pavement below. She finally jumped herself, thus ending the
grisly multiple homicide/suicide scene.(4)

In 1979, a long running battle between John Singer and Summit
County, over whether Singer should be allowed to educate his
children at home, came to a striking climax when Singer was shot
and killed by police when he resisted their attempts to arrest
him. Singer had refused to accept court judgements that his
children needed to be educated in the public schools. He was shot
during the attempted arrest when police feared that he would
shoot one of them.(5)

On July 24, 1984, Ronald and Dan Lafferty went to the home of
their brother Allen, located in American Fork, Utah, and slit the
throats of his wife and fifteen month old child with a ten inch
hunting knife. Ron and Dan later claimed that they had received a
revelation from God telling them to kill these individuals, and
that an additional revelation had instructed them to flee to Reno
where they were to gamble and binge on booze, pot, and whores.(6)

In January of 1988, Adam Swapp bombed a Mormon Stake Center
in Kamas, Utah in retaliation for the death of his father-in-law,
John Singer, who was killed by police nine years earlier. Swapp
and his family then proceeded to hold off an army of police
officers and federal agents in a 13 day standoff before police
finally stormed their cabin and took them into custody following
a violent gun battle in which one officer was killed.(7)

In August of 1994, former Mormon church member Jim Harmston
organized his own church named The True and Living Church of
Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days. Attracting a devout
group of polygamists, the church preaches that Armageddon is at
hand and that the Federal Government is corrupt. The group's
accumulation of guns and food supplies has resulted in
comparisons between them and the Branch Davidians at Waco. Many
in the group fear that federal agents will attack them.(8)

The common thread among all these incidents is the fact that
the participants were believers in fundamentalist Mormon
doctrines, including the practice of polygamy. While the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) officially
renounced the practice of polygamy in 1890, citing the manifesto
of Wilford Woodruff, the actual practice of polygamy and
adherence to other fundamentalist doctrines has continued to
create problems for leaders of the main body of the Saints, and
has led to the creation of several splinter groups which have
left the larger group for reasons of doctrinal difference. It is
important to state at the outset that most fundamentalist Mormons
are decent, law abiding, and God fearing people who work hard and
only wish to be left alone. However, given the incidents listed
above, a study of this culture and its practices is warranted as
well.

In order to understand why a body of people, faithful to the
original doctrines of the church and numbering between 10,000 and
30,000 individuals, has spawned so many individuals prone to
violent and antisocial activity, it is necessary to explore the
doctrines, ideas, and cultural practices of these people. This
paper is concerned with understanding this propensity for
violence through an analysis of the historical basis for beliefs,
doctrines, and practices of these people. In order to understand
such strange and ruthless behaviors, an understanding of the
origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is
necessary.

Origins

Perhaps the quintessential modern American religion, claiming
a worldwide membership of nearly nine million, the Mormon church
began in 1823 when Joseph Smith Jr. claimed that he had visited
with God and Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in upstate New
York. Smith later translated the Book of Mormon from a set of
gold tablets he claimed to have received from an angel named
Moroni. Smith officially organized the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints on April 6, 1830. One of the fundamental tenets
of this new faith was that God spoke to the members on a regular
basis and that anyone in the faith was capable of receiving
revelation.

Church leaders began the practice of polygamy,
surreptitiously, not long after the church was organized. Some
accounts argue that Joseph Smith began experimenting with
polygamy as early as 1831.(9) Regardless of when the practice of
polygamy started, by the time Joseph Smith informed the elders of
his revelation regarding the practice of polygamy in 1843, it is
clear that Smith was married to at least seven women.(10) After
1843, the practice of polygamy among church elders became a
fairly common practice, although the church did not officially
sanction the practice until the general church conference of
1852.

Polygamy was not the only activity that distinguished the new
church. Beginning during a period of great social experimentation
in America, the church instituted several novel social programs
which distinguished it from the mainstream of American society.
Some of these ideas, beliefs, and practices--still held by
fundamentalists today, include the concept of the gathering, the
Law of Consecration (or United Order), a strong belief in
personal revelation, heavenly visitations, inspired dreams and
visions, the doctrine of Blood Atonement, the belief that the
laws of God are more important than the laws of men, and the
concept that the government of the United States is irredeemably
corrupt and will be destroyed.(11)

Since each of these concepts was at odds with society at
large, it was almost inevitable that the Saints would find
trouble, and they did. Clashes with "gentiles" in Ohio,
Missouri, and Illinois pushed the Mormons west to Utah and
inspired a strong persecution complex among them. Even in Utah,
the Mormons were strongly persecuted for the practice of polygamy
and were often in open rebellion against the United States
government. President Buchanan went so far as to send an army in
an attempt to enforce US law among the Mormons.(12) It is
impossible to understand the mind set of the fundamentalist
Mormon without understanding this persecution complex. While
almost all Mormons in Utah feel, to some degree, that their
ancestors were persecuted for their beliefs, the fundamentalist
groups have a double reason for this feeling. Not only were their
ancestors persecuted for their beliefs, they are persecuted by
mainstream Mormons and gentiles alike for maintaining their
stance with the teachings of early church leaders.

This persecution complex frequently complements other
fundamentalist concepts to create an atmosphere where
misunderstanding and violence can easily occur. To better
understand how this interaction occurs, I will explore each of
these concepts, discussing their historical development and
exploring how they combine to create this sort of atmosphere.

Polygamy

The practice of polygamy was the most obvious of all new
church doctrines which indicated that the church had no intention
of playing by the already established rules of American society.
When Brigham Young announced that polygamy would be the official
religious practice of the church, and that it was sanctioned by
God, the cry of outrage from the rest of America was immediate.
The Republican Party quickly tailored its platform in opposition
to the "twin relics of barbarism." "The Democrats,
not wishing to imply support of polygamy by their support of
slavery, became as vehement as were their political opponents in
denouncing the Mormon institution of Polygamy."(13)

By the time Buchanan entered the White House in 1857, he was
convinced that the Mormons were in a state of rebellion and would
not accept government appointees unless forced to do so. In
response, he sent an army under the command of Albert Sidney
Johnston, to Utah for the purpose of putting down the rebellion.
The Mormons did not take this affront to their society lying
down. They were convinced that the millennium was at hand and
that the demise of the United States government was imminent.
They were more than willing to fight for their way of life
against Johnston's army, and did conduct limited guerrilla
warfare against the army as it made its way to Utah. A negotiated
settlement finally led to the acceptance of Buchanan's appointee
as governor, and the Mormons were allowed to continue the
practice of polygamy.(14)

Polygamy continued unabated during the course of the Civil
War, and except for the passage of the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act,
attentions of the government were directed toward the more
divisive question of slavery. Once the war ended, however, the
popular sentiment to end polygamy surfaced again. Government
attempts to stop the practice of polygamy continued throughout
the 1870's and 1880's. Under the provisions of the Edmunds Act
and the Edmunds-Tucker Act, Mormons were precluded from voting,
wives and children were declared illegitimate, and the property
of the church was confiscated. Many Mormon leaders were jailed or
had to go into hiding. In response to such intense persecution,
Wilford Woodruff signed the Woodruff Manifesto under duress,
putting an official end to the church's practice of polygamy.(15)

While the official practice of polygamy had ended, most
Mormons still continued the practice. There is clear evidence
that polygamous marriages were sanctioned by apostles of the
church as late as 1904, and the practice probably continued
covertly into the 1930's.(16) There were a number of Mormons who
never accepted the Manifesto. They became fundamentalists. Their
continued practice of polygamy came increasingly under the
scrutiny of both Federal and church officials.

Although the main body of Mormons had officially renounced
polygamy and other fundamentalist doctrines, there was still a
great deal of sympathy among Mormons in Utah toward those who
continued the practice. However, when the church leaders began to
realize that the perception of polygamy was hurting the image of
the church in the 1930's and 1940's, they began to denounce the
practice more strongly. Under the leadership of J. Reuben Clark,
a councillor to President Heber J. Grant, the church instituted a
program of forcing Mormon men to sign loyalty oaths stating that
they denounced "the advocacy and practice of plural marriage
. . . and that I myself am not living in such alleged marriage
relationship." Those who refused to sign were summarily
excommunicated. By 1940, Clark had directed loyal priesthood
leaders to spy on all people attending meetings at houses of
known fundamentalists, encouraged the Salt Lake City librarian to
remove all fundamentalist literature from the library, instructed
the Salt Lake City postmaster to prohibit all fundamentalist
mailings, and encouraged criminal prosecution of
fundamentalists.(17) This harsh treatment of fundamentalists
continued throughout the 1940's and 1950's, culminating in the
Short Creek raid of 1953. It was conducted under the direction of
Arizona Governor Howard Pyle, and more than a hundred law
enforcement officials who placed the entire town under martial
law and tried to arrest the town's leaders, who had fled in the
night. This incident created national outrage except in Utah,
where the church supported the activities of the law enforcement
officers.(18)

Polygamists were now social outcasts in relation to both the
church and the society at large. They continued to rely on their
faith and rejected the new direction that the main body of the
church had taken. Polygamy sets the fundamentalists apart from
the world and isolates their culture. An examination of this
isolation in relation to other beliefs will illustrate how the
fundamentalist propensity for violence has come to be.

The Gathering

The gathering of the Saints was a policy implemented by the
church leaders while the Mormons were living in Kirtland. The
goal of the gathering was to bring all Mormons to Zion.
Missionaries were dispatched to convert new members to the faith
in Europe, Canada, and other parts of America. Those new members
were urged to congregate with the main body of the church and
prepare for the coming of Christ, which they believed was
imminent. The gathering policy continued as the Mormons moved
west, and was finally discontinued during the panic of 1893, when
church leaders noticed the high levels of unemployment in Salt
Lake City. They began to urge new converts to the faith to remain
in their homelands and further the growth of the church
abroad.(19)

The fundamentalists disagreed with bringing the gathering to
an end. They believed, and continue to believe, that the return
of Christ was imminent. They continue to urge believers to gather
together and prepare for the advent of the millennial reign. This
gathering phenomenon serves to congregate the believers in
close-knit communities that are largely self sufficient and have
few ties to the outside world. This reinforces the isolation of
fundamentalists and removes them further from the reality of
world affairs.

The isolation of fundamentalist groups and other cults serves
to create a sense of "otherness" that increases
tendencies for violence. According to Stuart Wright, a professor
of sociology at Lamar University,

"Moreover, they and their followers are not afraid to
die for their beliefs, convinced that their acts of religious
conviction can be defined as martyrdom, earning them spiritual
rewards. Communal groups, by definition, have separated from
mainstream society to build a distinct lifestyle and moral order.
They have already made a statement about their disapproval of
conventional norms and values. Their very purpose in life is
epitomized in this existence and becomes meaningless if co-opted
or destroyed by the surrounding society."(20)

The Law of Consecration and the United Order

The Law of Consecration was a revelation received by Joseph
Smith in 1831.(21) It stipulated that all the property of the
Saints should be held in common and distributed "that every
man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to
his wants."(22) Mormons were early communists as they
attempted to practice the law of consecration in the 1830's, but
this experiment was unsuccessful, in part because of the Panic of
1837. Brigham Young attempted to implement the Law of
Consecration under the auspices of a plan he termed "The
United Order" on two separate occasions in the 1850's and
1870's with varying degrees of success. This economic system,
designed to create self-sufficiency among Mormons and isolate
them from the "gentile economy," was ultimately
abandoned as the economy of Utah became integrated with the
national economy.(23)

Fundamentalists still believe in the teachings of Brigham
Young and other early church leaders, and believe that the only
true economic order is the United Order. They use this statement
by Orson Pratt as part of their justification for believing that
the law of consecration should continue to be practiced.

"The Lord said in that revelation that the principle
which he had revealed in relation to the properties of his Church
must be carried out to the very letter upon the land of Zion; and
those individuals who would not give heed to it, but sought to
obtain their inheritances in an individual way by purchasing it
themselves from the Government should have their names blotted
out from the book of the names of the righteous, and if their
children pursued the same course their names should be blotted
out too, they and their children should not be known in the book
of the law of the Lord as being entitled to an inheritance among
the Saints in Zion. We find therefore, that the Lord drove out
this people because we were unworthy to receive our inheritances
by consecration. As a people, we did not strictly comply with
that which the Lord required. Neither did they comply in
Kirtland. This ought to be an example for us who are living at a
later period in the history of the Church of the living God, and
who ought, by this time, to have become thoroughly experienced in
the law of God."(24)

Not all fundamentalist groups practice the Law of
Consecration, but several groups use modified forms of the United
Order. Most notably, the Kingston group operates a conglomerate
worth more than $150 million, with group members transferring all
personal property to the group.(25) In Colorado City, Arizona,
the land for the community is held in a common trust known as the
United Effort Plan Trust.(26)

The economic practices of fundamentalists hold a special key
to understanding violence. Like all Mormons, fundamentalists
tithe one-tenth of their earnings to their leaders. They are
generally very thrifty and hard working people, and in the groups
where property is held in common, the leaders generally control
the assets.

"[Owen] Allred testified at Ervil LeBaron's murder trial
that Allred's approximately 2,000 followers in the Apostolic
United Brethren pay about $125,000 in annual tithing and that his
group owned more than $1 million in property. That testimony
underscores the wealth that belongs to some polygamist
groups."(27)

This makes the leadership of a fundamentalist group a
potentially lucrative situation. It is widely believed that a
major motivation behind the death of Rulon Allred was a desire on
the part of Ervil LeBaron to gain the assets and tithes from the
Allred group members.

The various implementations of the "law of
consecration" have also created tensions when members try to
leave the main group. Because all property is consecrated to the
group, leaving the group often entails a great deal of economic
hardship. This serves to create resentment among disaffected
members who feel they can't leave without giving up their homes
and property.(28)

Personal Revelation and Heavenly Visitations

The Mormon Church began with a personal visit from God and
Jesus Christ, and visitations from heavenly personages were
common occurrences in the early church. Numerous stories of
visits from angels, apostles of Jesus, and even God himself grace
the pages of church history. The Doctrine and Covenants makes
several references to the appearance of God in the temple(29) and
the entire Doctrine and Covenants was delivered to the church
through revelation. Members of the early church believed that
personal revelation was a gift from God and that it came
frequently when one kept the commandments and lived a righteous
life.(30) There are literally hundreds of accounts of how people
were directed through personal revelation.

Mormons also believed in living prophets. Like the prophets
of old, they believed that God spoke his will through the mouths
of his prophets. There are numerous examples in the early history
of Utah where various groups broke away from the main body of the
church to follow different prophets who believed they had the
gifts of prophecy and revelation. The Godbeites and Morrisites
are the two most famous of these groups.(31)

When the church abandoned the practice of polygamy, it was
logical that some groups of people would refuse to follow the
counsel of the church leaders. These groups began to follow their
own prophets and leaders. Two of the most influential of these
breakaway leaders were Dayer LeBaron(32) and Joseph Musser.(33)
Both men were extremely devout and believed that they had
received special "keys" from God which instructed them
to continue the practice of polygamy and other fundamentalist
beliefs. These new fundamentalists believed firmly in the gifts
of modern revelation and prophecy, and held a firm faith that
otherworldy beings would continue to visit them on earth and
instruct them in ways to keep the true and living church alive on
the earth.

The lines of authority and the keys to the priesthood are
very important concepts among all Mormon groups. They believe it
is important that their authority to act in the capacity of
church leaders be directly traceable to Jesus Christ. Most Mormon
priesthood holders can tell you the specific lineage through
which their personal priesthood authority is derived. The
polygamist groups that developed under the leadership of Dayer
LeBaron and Joseph Musser derive their church authority from two
early Mormon leaders.

The LeBarons claimed that Benjamin F. Johnson, an early
follower of Joseph Smith, bequeathed special priesthood keys,
"the Right of the Firstborn Sceptre in Israel," from
Joseph directly to the LeBaron family. Dayer told his family that
Benjamin F. Johnson visited him in an angelic form after his
death to inform him about the true scope of his mission on
earth.(34) This claim supposedly gave them the right to lead the
"true church," and they later used this claim in an
attempt to assert their authority over all fundamentalist groups.

In 1955, Ross, Joel, and Floren LeBaron filed papers in Salt
Lake to incorporate the Church of the Firstborn in the Fulness of
Times. They quickly converted their brothers, Ervil and Alma, and
then began missionary work to convert others. Ervil was
especially charismatic and had a great deal of success converting
people in Mexico, Utah, and in France. Soon the church claimed
over five hundred members, with Joel declaring himself the
"One Mighty and Strong" who would restore the
polygamous heritage of the original church. With Ervil as second
in command, the group claimed supremacy over all other
fundamentalist groups.(35)

When Joel began to notice how unstable Ervil was, he threw
him out of the church. Ervil's response was a revelation that
Joel was to be removed as an obstacle to the work of God. He
ordered Joel's murder in August 1972. After this incident, Ervil
took control of the church, calling it the Church of the Lamb of
God, and began receiving hundreds of revelations. He received
revelations that allowed him to print numerous doctrinal
pamphlets, and revelations which instructed his followers about
whom they should kill next. Ervil had declared himself a prophet
of God, claimed that he spoke for God here on Earth, and produced
the revelations to prove it.(36) The LeBaron group and the Musser
group, claiming authority to lead the faithful from different
sources, were about to combine themselves forever in history.

Joseph Musser claimed his leadership authority from John
Taylor, the third president of the LDS church. In 1886, John
Taylor received a revelation and a visit from God while avoiding
federal authorities and hiding out in Centerville, Utah. During
this revelation, God instructed Taylor that the church must
continue the practice of polygamy no matter what else happened.
At the time of the revelation, church leaders had been
considering a manifesto that would abandon the practice of
polygamy. On the morning after the revelation, Taylor stated,
"Sign that document, --Never! I would suffer my right hand
to be severed from my body first. Sanction it, --Never! I would
suffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before I
would sanction it!"(37)

Taylor then set apart Lorin C. Woolley and four other men,
charging them that they should never let a year pass by without
children being born under the principle of plural marriage. They
were also given the authority to ordain others in carrying the
work forward. Using this authority, Woolley began the first
fundamentalist organization in 1929. After his death, a series of
other leaders were ordained and placed in charge of the
organization, most notably, J. Leslie Broadbent and John Y.
Barlow. After their deaths, control of the organization fell to
Joseph Musser in 1949.(38)

Musser was the shepherd for the small flock until a stroke
left him slightly incapacitated and he ordained Rulon C. Allred
to be his "Second Elder." This ordination created some
controversy among the laity, and when Musser finally died in 1954
some of the members chose to follow LeRoy Johnson as the leader
in Short Creek. Others chose to follow Allred in Salt Lake City,
and his group came to be known as the Apostolic United
Brethren.(39)

Ervil LeBaron saw Allred's Apostolic United Brethren as a
threat to his organization. He saw them as removing potential
converts, diverting tithing and assets, and most importantly,
fragmenting the faith. He had revelations to kill Rulon Allred as
a method to gain control of Allred's group, and to remove any
power threat from his brother Verlan, who he planned to have
killed at Allred's funeral. Owen Allred analyzed the LeBaron
phenomenon, stating,

" I've known the LeBaron family for over 40 years and
some of the brothers are good men, they disowned Ervil years ago
because he was crazy, only after power and money -- he was always
demanding that Rulon tithe to him, and he wouldn't, that's why
they killed him. And this bunch now, why they're just a pack of
murdering thugs. They shouldn't even be called polygamists . .
."(40)

The role of Musser and his followers was to continually
emphasize the revelatory and eternal nature of fundamentalist
doctrines. They did this by publishing their revelations and the
revelations of early church leaders regarding important religious
subjects.(41) Ervil LeBaron also published his revelations on
such subjects, and those revelations eventually served to strike
terror into the hearts of fundamentalists everywhere.(42)

Importantly, in each of the cases cited at the beginning of
this article, the principle actors indicated a heavy reliance on
revelations from God as the driving force behind their actions.
Immanuel David frequently claimed the gifts of prophecy and
revelation, blessed his son that he would become the prophet of
the church,(43) and often etched his revelations into the blades
of hunting knives.(44) Ron and Dan Lafferty recorded specific
revelations from God instructing them to kill, and Ron later
asked a reporter, "If God came to you and asked you to take
someone's life, would you?"(45) John Singer relied heavily
upon revelation in his fight with the Utah justice system,(46)
and the Singer family truly believed that John would be
resurrected and come to save them in their standoff with the
authorities after they bombed the church in Kamas.(47)

In an interview for this paper on May 6, 1995, a
fundamentalist who maintains membership in the Apostolic United
Brethren stated that he had no doubt that the revelations claimed
by Ervil LeBaron were valid. He called them "black
revelations," saying that they must have come from Satan. He
also said that the Harmston group in Manti, Utah had also
experienced several revelations, and had received visits from
angels and resurrected personages who were early Mormon
leaders.(48) In a second interview, conducted on May 20, 1995,
Douglas LeBaron confirmed the fact that the Harmston group
claimed to have received several heavenly visitors.(49)

The conclusion is inescapable: strong reliance on revelation
creates an atmosphere where the proclivity for violence can
flourish. According to Ronald Enroth, a sociology professor at
Westmont College, nearly all cults insert themselves aggressively
into their members lives, but the "potential to explode
depends on the leader's mental health and whether or not the
leader can be pushed over the cliff." Keys to watch for are
whether the leader "has made himself into God's mouthpiece,
or God," if the group has a strong fortress mentality, and
to what extent the group has armed itself.(50) C. Jess Grossbeck,
a psychiatrist at the Utah State Mental Hospital points out that

"The idea of getting one's direction from God is very
fundamental to the Mormon way of life. There are certain
individuals who have visionary or other kinds of altered
states-of-consciousness experiences that have a hallmark of
coming from a deity. With a religion like Mormonism, there
already is a theological structure in place to call upon to
explain this phenomenon."(51)

Blood Atonement and Oaths of Vengeance

In 1842, Joseph Smith received a series of revelations
regarding the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. His
goal was the establishment of a theocratic kingdom at Nauvoo,
Illinois where he would be the King of Israel, and the Council of
Fifty would be the governmental structure which would prepare the
way for the millennial reign of Christ. As part of the
elaboration for this theocratic plan, Smith presented what would
come to be known as the doctrine of "Blood Atonement."
The concept behind this doctrine was that people who committed
particularly grievous acts against the Mormons would have to shed
their blood to atone for the sins they had committed. The
Mormons, especially the Danites, used the doctrine of blood
atonement as justification for the depredations they committed
during their war against the Missourians. Orrin Porter Rockwell
also used the concept of blood atonement as justification for his
assassination attempt on Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs.(52)

When Joseph Smith was killed on June 27, 1844, his assassins
created the circumstances for what has become known as the
"Oath of Vengeance." A corollary to the doctrine of
blood atonement, the oath of vengeance was created on the first
anniversary of Smith's death as a formal prayer for God's
vengeance upon those who shed the blood of the prophet's. Six
months later this oath of vengeance became a part of the Mormon
temple endowment ceremony.(53) The specific oath stated the
following:

" You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that
you will pray and never cease to pray and never cease to
importune High Heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this
nation and that you will teach this to your children and your
children's children until the third and fourth
generation."(54)

This oath of vengeance was used several times in 1845 as
justification for killing people who had been involved in the
murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.(55)

When the doctrines of blood atonement and oath of vengeance
were dropped as part of church doctrine, fundamentalists saw this
as yet another instance of the church caving in to political
pressure. They still believe firmly in these doctrines. Kraut
remarks that "Today, the doctrine of blood atonement is
never taught and rarely mentioned. The idea of capital punishment
has almost become eradicated by communists, psychologists,
psychiatrists, and liberal educators. The Oath of Vengeance is no
longer a part of the temple ceremony."(56)

This belief in blood atonement and oaths of vengeance serves
to further the atmosphere of violence that surrounds
fundamentalist culture. Such doctrines make it much easier to
believe that violent acts of murder are the will of God. After
Adam Swapp bombed the church in Kamas, law enforcement
authorities received letters from Swapp stating that their role
in John Singer's death made them guilty of "cold blooded
murder," and that "this blood cries to the Lord for
vengeance. The Lord's holy arm cannot be stayed any
longer."(57)

Ervil LeBaron developed the doctrine of blood atonement
further, arguing that sinners should shed their blood to save
their souls. He also developed an extension to the doctrine which
he called the "Law of Liberty," which held that false
prophets, traitors, and children who did not obey his directives
would be killed. His "Book of New Covenants" was then
created as a list of traitors to his cause so that family members
could continue to exact his revenge even after his death.(58)
According to Salt Lake County district attorney investigator
Richard Forbes, the creed defined individuals who left the sect
as "sons of perdition" and required they be killed
before the Kingdom of God could come to Earth. Forbes also said
that the sect's regulations for its members spell out specific
punishment for leaving the group, stating that the rules outline,
"one-on-one punishment specifically, and that was the death
penalty to anyone who forsakes the law."(59)

Laws of God and Laws of Men

The theocracy, planned for in Kirtland and Missouri and
organized at Nauvoo by Joseph Smith, evolved on the strength of
Mormon millennial views. The Mormons were clearly prepared for
the destruction of the US Government and the beginning of the
millennial reign. They saw their duty as preparing a political
and religious system to be ready for the return of Christ. This
need to prepare a theocracy to usher in the return of Christ led
to the development of concepts such as "religious
sovereignty," where Smith declared the Mormons a separate
religious nation within the political entity of the United
States, and "theocratic ethics," where Mormon leaders
argued for their right to perform civil functions without
sanction of the state, defended their right to ignore the laws of
the state when they were in conflict with the "laws of
God." This new theocratic view created a great deal of
friction and violence between the Mormons and Gentiles of
Missouri.(60)

The early history of Mormonism is fraught with violence.
Mormons defended their doctrines and their rights to religious
freedom against all who opposed them. They did this because they
believed that they were living a higher law and were not bound by
the laws of the state. Fundamentalists still believe in this
concept of religious sovereignty and have used it universally in
justifying their actions. Their claim that the laws of God are
more important that the laws of the state gives them a religious
basis for breaking laws they feel are unjust.

On the other hand, when the church veered away from rebellion
and toward harmony with the laws of the United States,
fundamentalists were now persecuted from two angles. While
justification for ignoring the laws of the state could be found
by obeying the laws of God, Joseph Musser began to explain why
fundamentalists would no longer follow the leaders of the church.
His argument centered around the authority of the church and the
authority of the priesthood.

Musser's contention was that the church was a temporal and
political organization, while the priesthood was the true
organization of God here on earth. He argued that the president
of the church was not necessarily the president of the
priesthood. He did not consider himself in opposition to the
gospel, only in opposition to a hierarchy in error. He also wrote
that since "church is subservient to the priesthood, any
action taken by it against those entering the law [plural
marriage] is, null and void. A man or woman cannot properly be
cut off [from] the church for keeping the law of God, for the
church belongs to God and God cannot act a lie and remain
God."(61) Musser then reasoned that fundamentalists were
subject only to direction from priesthood leaders who accepted
the "truth" about plural marriage.(62)

John Singer is perhaps the best example of a fundamentalist
who adamantly maintained that the laws of God must be followed
when in conflict with the laws of the state. Singer removed his
children from the public schools in spite of Utah's compulsory
attendance law because he believed that the schools were
corrupting his children with principles contrary to God's
laws.(63) Once the state forced the Singers into a position where
they either had to send their children to school or give them up
to foster homes, they chose to adopt the siege mentality and
continued to maintain that they were practicing the laws of
God.(64)

When the Lafferty's were bound over to the court for trial,
both of them refused representation by an attorney. According to
Judge Sumison, they were

"looking at this thing from a spiritual plain. .
.relying on God to get them through this thing, and appear to be
prepared to suffer any consequences that might entail. They seem
happy and content to do that. I have explained to them that their
religious defense is probably not going to fly in the courts.
You're talking about courts of man and not courts of God, and the
religious defense they want to present may not be admissible in
the courts of man."(65)

When Dan Lafferty represented himself, he spent most of his
defense quoting scripture and ultimately argued that God's court,
and not man's court, must judge him.(66)

Joseph Smith once wrote,

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and
often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,--at
another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the
principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by
revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of
the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter
what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long
after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God,
all good things will be added . . . even things which may be
considered abominable to all who do not understand the order of
heaven . . ."(67)

This view of the world allows people incredible latitude.
They can ignore the norms of society in favor of whatever they
perceive to be the norms of God. Any social system organized in
this manner leaves itself wide open to violence. Anyone can have
revelations and these revelations must then be carried out
because they are the laws of God. Such a system not only helps to
explain the history of violence associated with fundamentalist
Mormon doctrine, but also explains why the groups are so
frequently splintered and fragmented, constantly running after
the next self-proclaimed "One Mighty and Strong."

Fall of the US Government

The Mormon Church had its origins in the 1820's in a region
historians now refer to as the "burnt over district."
During this time, upstate New York was swept with a religious
revival based on the belief that the millennium was at hand.(68)
The Mormons originated as a millennialist sect, and their beliefs
haven't changed greatly. Members of the church refer constantly
to the second coming of Christ. Part of this original belief in
the impending millennium was easily translated into the belief
that the government of the United States would soon collapse.

When the Mormons failed to receive federal aid for their
cause against the Missouri mobs, church leaders prophesied this
governmental collapse. As the nation slid closer to the slavery
crisis, most Mormons were sure that the pressure would create the
prophesied collapse. They were sure that the Civil War was the
fulfillment of this prophecy. The emergence of a stronger federal
government after the war failed to dim this thinking. Mormons
were sure that a government which so badly persecuted God's
chosen people could not long survive. This statement by Wilford
Woodruff is a good example of the many revelations and prophecies
that church leaders made regarding the fall of the United States
government.

"I ask myself the question, can the American nation
escape? The answer comes, No; its destruction, as well as the
destruction of the world, is sure; just as sure as the nations
that once inhabited this continent of North and South America
because of their wickedness, so will He destroy them, and sooner
or later they will reap the fruits of their own wicked acts, and
be numbered among the past."(69)

Fundamentalists have always believed that the second coming
of Christ is close at hand, and they have always been politically
conservative, but the followers of Jim Harmston have raised new
concerns about millennialism among fundamentalists. Many of his
followers claim that they were excommunicated for their
ultra-conservative political beliefs and their preoccupation with
the end of the world. Most members of the group believe that
Christ will return on April 6, 2000. Many of the believers are
well-armed conspiracy minded survivalists who have retreated to
the central Utah mountains to await Armageddon.(70)

The conservative fervor among these new fundamentalist
Mormons reached a fever pitch in 1992 when over 28,000 of them
voted for ultra-conservative candidate James "Bo"
Gritz. The fundamentalists interpret many current events, from
the rise of the European Community to the placement of computer
bar codes on toothpaste tubes, as fulfilling Mormon prophecies
that the "end times" are near. They see the "new
world order" as part of a predicted conspiracy by Jews,
lawyers and bankers to promote a "one world" government
that would deny the political and religious rights protected by
the divinely inspired U.S. Constitution. They are storing large
quantities of food and are preparing for a chaotic global
breakdown which will be marked by an explosion of violence among
the black and Hispanic urban masses and turmoil in the Third
World.(71)

This new breed of Mormon fundamentalism is especially
troubling. Rather than a small band obsessed with power and
tithing money, rather than an isolated prophet with a revelation
to kill, here is a group of people, feeling persecuted and armed
with whatever they can find. Believing in their gifts of prophecy
and revelation, fired up by heavenly visions and doctrines of
blood atonement and oaths of vengeance, they have isolated
themselves in a small valley and wait for the end of the world,
concerned all the while that the government is about to take away
their freedoms. This is a situation that certainly bears
watching.

Conclusion

As an exploration of the relationship between Mormon
fundamentalism and violence, this paper has analyzed the origins
of Mormon fundamentalist doctrines and illustrated how these
doctrines can become operationalized in a violent way.
Fundamentalists are isolated, committed to their beliefs, and
live in a faith with a violent history. They believe strongly in
the gifts of prophecy and revelation, claim that they are
frequently visited by heavenly personages, and are instructed in
how they should conduct their lives. They believe that they are
following the laws of God, which are superior to the laws of
society. Most fundamentalists are religious, law abiding people,
but sometimes this potent blend of religion, isolation,
revelation and action combines to create a culture of violence.

America is a unique nation in that it guarantees the freedom
of religion with the first amendment and the right to bear arms
with the second amendment. This means that people can believe
whatever they want, and they can buy the guns to protect that
belief. Throughout the history of their faith, Mormons have
relied on the constitution, their faith, and their guns to
protect their rights. That tradition continues in the form of
Mormon fundamentalism today, and can be expected to continue into
the future.

Notes

(1)The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, published in Salt Lake City in various
editions, sec. 85:7, hereafter D&C with numbers of section
and verse(s).